Supported the position that the state must apply children’s federal insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI in accordance with the children’s best interests and not to reduce the state’s foster care system’s financial burden.

Argued that the juvenile court erred by waiving its jurisdiction of a youth and transferring the youth to adult court based on the charged offense alone, without an individualized determination of the youth's maturity, culpability, and capacity for change.

Filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of two juveniles who were subjected to excessive and intolerable isolation while in the custody of the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), claiming violations of substantive and procedural due process rights under federal and state law.

Surveyed statutes and social science literature in a lawsuit involving the interpretation of the “reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunite families provision of the Adoption and Assistance Child Welfare Act.

Argued that a provision in New Mexico state law allowing juveniles to be sentenced by juvenile court judges as adults if the judge found them “not amenable to treatment” was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment.

Argued that a New Jersey statute governing transfer of juveniles to adult court, and the Attorney General Waiver Guidelines, as applied, violated a juvenile’s right to due process, and violated the separation of powers clause of the New Jersey State Constitution.

Argued that certification hearing deprived Appellant of due process, that juveniles are particularly susceptible to the pressure and coercion that are central to felony-murder and manslaughter, and that juvenile developmental status is relevant to constitutional analysis.

Motions were filed with the juvenile court seeking nunc pro tunc relief on behalf of youth who in York County had been adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses prior to December 2012 when the SORNA law went into effect. The motions for nunc pro tunc relief ask the court to reconsider their classification as juvenile sex offenders and remove their information from the sex offender registry.

These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.